A Response to Critics of the Solar Roadways Concept

While there is an abundance of positive response to the Solar Roadways concept, there has also been an avalanche of negativity that completely misses the point. As reviewed in a recent Global Warming is Real article, the concept of embedding solar panels into American roadways represents a powerful new approach to green innovation and finance.

Without paying heed to the benefits, many critics are focused on what they perceive as the project’s technological imperfections. Among their comments, they suggest the surface of a roadway with embedded solar panels would not be able to handle the stresses placed upon it, or that vehicular traffic and debris would seriously inhibit the ability of such roads to harvest the sun’s energy. Other criticisms state that the concept is hardly new and therefore somehow less worthy of interest. Some lament that we should be using roofs rather than roads to collect solar power.

Still others rue the cost.

The creators of the Solar Roadway project have estimated the cost of embedding solar panels on American highways to be under $5 billion, while others claim it will cost trillions of dollars.

An engineer by the name of Roy Spencer is among those who dismiss the viability of Solar Roadways. It must be stated at the outset, while he claims to be a climatologist, he also seems to infer that “global warming is mostly natural.” So it is important to note that as far as his credibility is concerned, he is a scientific outlier, aka, a climate denier.

In an article titled Solar Roadways Project: A Really Bad Idea, Spencer flatly dismisses the concept. He says, ” I don’t see how anyone with an engineering background could have seriously entertained the idea.” In the body of his article, he sites “numerous practical problems.”

Spencer regurgitates some of the criticisms cited above and he concludes by dismissing the Solar Roadways project as a “scam.” However, his commentary should be appreciated from the perspective of someone trying to promote his book on climate denial. In this book titled, The Great Global Warming Blunder, Spencer eloquently illustrates his confirmation bias by creatively spinning the evidence to suggest that 98 percent of scientists are wrong in their interpretation of the data. According to his assessments, global warming is not manmade. A contention which has been repeatedly debunked.